Laser weapons...
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
First, your using of "plain" vs. "plane" threw me at first; I was thinking, "Why base lasers in Kansas?" One idea behind this is to have the airplane in a pattern near a battlefield or danger zone and then to use it primarily to shoot down enemy missiles during boost phase (one advantage is that the results of the destruction don't come raining down on you, causing incidental damage.) Tracking systems have gotten quite sophisticated, so I don't think this is that big of a problem. (The laser sight system on the Abrams tank is amazing.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modifed at 12:08 Thursday 25th August, 2005
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
PLANE!!!
sorry. On topic: I wonder how much reach they'd have, and how fast they can track.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. I still find a straight line way easier to calculate than a balistic curve including horizontal and vertical attrition, wind, temperature differences, initial speed, gravity, weight, density and so many other variables. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. T Look up quanta or quantum. Ray Cassick wrote: The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. Gravity will affect the laser just as it does a shell - in exactly the same way. There is much less difficulty in aiming and hitting a target with a laser than there is with a projectile. Just as a trivial example you have to aim a projectile at where the target ( if it is moving ) WILL BE when the projectile arrives. A laser , because of the speed of propagation , does not have this difficulty at the ranges we are dealing with. Ray Cassick wrote: a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. Not really true in terms of what we call a "Fire and Forget" weapon. A FF weapon will have the ability to track and change its path to hit a target. A shell just goes where it is aimed at no matter what the target does. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Lasers are much easier to target. You don't have to calibrate for gravity or travel time. If there is anything moving fast enough that you have to lead it with a laser, you aren't going to be able to hit it at all. :rolleyes: A laser pulse is just 1020+ really really really fast bullets fired all at once.
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
AND if they make the missles out of mirrors, then the lasers all but useless ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
From 10,000+ feet and traveling at nearly 1,000 miles per hour there is no such thing as a fire and forget weapon. Everything comes down to earth somewhere especially whatever you just shot out of the sky. I believe the lasers you are referring to will diffuse after an x-factor of time.
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will finish this project, in this life or the next. Slightly modified " from Gladiator. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
Lasers are much easier to target. You don't have to calibrate for gravity or travel time. If there is anything moving fast enough that you have to lead it with a laser, you aren't going to be able to hit it at all. :rolleyes: A laser pulse is just 1020+ really really really fast bullets fired all at once.
Gyro-stabilized IFCS (Integrated Fire control Systems) are so sophisticated that an fairly unskilled gunner in a tank travelling at speed over roadless, rough terrain can acquire and hit another tank 1km away, also moving at speed with a ballistic weapon. I know this can be done because I've done it ... well my target wasn't moving, it was a hulk of an old tank deployed for target practice but the tank I was in was moving at a pretty good lick, and I hit it with the second round of the only two rounds of 115mm I ever fired from a tank ;) And this was on South African weapons systems of 12 years ago! One of the perks of designing vehicle and weapons simulators for the military. Hitting something from a plane in flight (generally much smoother motion than a tank travelling over rough ground) with a laser (no ballistics to worry about) usin much more modern technology would probably be trivial by comparison. Steve T
-
AND if they make the missles out of mirrors, then the lasers all but useless ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
Not true. There's no such thing as a perfect mirror, and even 1 or 2% of the beam is sufficient to ruin the finish at which point a majority of the energy is absorbed.
:doh: Dan ... that was a joke ... Everyone knows that if you even attempted to create a missle out of mirrors that they would shatter in-flight thereby subjecting the country that launched the missle to 7 years bad luck. Yes Dan, that was another joke. ;P Yes, it was bad, that's never stopped me from using them ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better. Very true, that is why they make the tracking systems very very fast. Any mobile, ground or air system has to account for all these variables. I don't see a problem. Consistant and reliable power is more difficult than tracking. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Gyro-stabilized IFCS (Integrated Fire control Systems) are so sophisticated that an fairly unskilled gunner in a tank travelling at speed over roadless, rough terrain can acquire and hit another tank 1km away, also moving at speed with a ballistic weapon. I know this can be done because I've done it ... well my target wasn't moving, it was a hulk of an old tank deployed for target practice but the tank I was in was moving at a pretty good lick, and I hit it with the second round of the only two rounds of 115mm I ever fired from a tank ;) And this was on South African weapons systems of 12 years ago! One of the perks of designing vehicle and weapons simulators for the military. Hitting something from a plane in flight (generally much smoother motion than a tank travelling over rough ground) with a laser (no ballistics to worry about) usin much more modern technology would probably be trivial by comparison. Steve T
Exactly my point. Current systems can handle all the balistics calculations and still hit a target. Using a laser is even easier not harder.
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Laser targeting via a moving platform is old technology. The fact that you're reading about it now means that the military considers it old technology. An example: laser targeted smart bombs during Desert Storm. Googling for video from aircraft doing the 'painting' should be fairly simple. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Laser targeting via a moving platform is old technology. The fact that you're reading about it now means that the military considers it old technology. An example: laser targeted smart bombs during Desert Storm. Googling for video from aircraft doing the 'painting' should be fairly simple. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
this article doesn't talk about laser targetting. Rather it is talking about laser WEAPONS, aka a RAY GUN!! :-)
-
I just read this article on CNN today about a plain based laser weapon: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/index.html[^] …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. Take a look at a bullet first. Not taking into account for any induced movement due to the movement of the barrel durring flight, a bullet is pretty much a fire-and-forget type weapon. The shale is ejected and goes on a trajectory independent (for the most part) of the plain that fired it. Lasers on the other hand are a bit different as I see it. Light by its very nature is very point-to-point. The beam extends from it point of origin outwards in a straight line. This seems to be to be one very big problem when it comes to targeting lasers from plains. One very small movement in any direction at the point of origin and, given any significant distance, that error is amplified many times. I am not math major by any mans here but this seems to me to be a big problem. It seems to me that a ground based laser solution fits the bill much better.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
this article doesn't talk about laser targetting. Rather it is talking about laser WEAPONS, aka a RAY GUN!! :-)
It's all about the targeting. Whether the laser is millijoule or mega(giga)joule is beside the point. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Brush fires! Bah! What about the stray laser beam hitting the giant jiffy pop container in the living room? -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Ray Cassick wrote: …and it got me to thinking about what I perceive as a very impractical problem with lasers on plains. You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: You didn't even mention the potential for brush fires if the beam gets out of hand... you make sure they are REALLY BIG plains, then you have more time to react. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
:doh: Dan ... that was a joke ... Everyone knows that if you even attempted to create a missle out of mirrors that they would shatter in-flight thereby subjecting the country that launched the missle to 7 years bad luck. Yes Dan, that was another joke. ;P Yes, it was bad, that's never stopped me from using them ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site